RESP (CASRAI)Professional
Research Grant Proposal Writing — Professional
- Domains
- 8
- Exam items
- 5
- Cut score
- 70%
$349USD
View credentialRESF (CASRAI)
Research Grant Writing Certification — Foundation
LevelFoundationRESRESF (CASRAI)
6
Lessons
6 modules
8
Domains
Exam blueprint
1
Exam items
Per attempt
70%
Pass mark
Fixed, uncurved
90
Retake wait
Days
What you earn
The credential itself
Pass the examination and CASRAI issues this certificate and the post-nominal RESF (CASRAI), signed by the Programme Director and verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.
CASRAI Certification
Certificate of Professional Competence
This is to certify that
Dr. Amelia R. Hartley
has completed the prescribed programme of study and passed the examination in
Research Grant Proposal Writing — Foundation
and is admitted to the designationRESF (CASRAI)
Verify atcasrai.org/verify/CASRAI-RES-2026-T1A6NH
Certifications
RESF (CASRAI) — Research Grant Proposal Writing, Foundation
CASRAI·Issued Mar 2026·Credential ID CASRAI-RES-2026-T1A6NH
casrai.org/verify/CASRAI-RES-2026-T1A6NH
Every certificate is issued under the signature of Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director of CASRAI Certification, who sets the syllabus, blueprint and pass mark for this credential.
It certifies that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published on this page — and anyone can confirm it from the verification code, without an account and without contacting us.
About this credential
What it covers
Body of knowledge
Exam blueprint
The exam is assembled to these weights on every attempt. They are published before purchase because a blueprint you cannot see is not a blueprint.
| Domain | Proportion of exam | Weight | Items |
|---|---|---|---|
| Funder landscape, NOFO analysis and opportunity fitF1 | 16%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Review architecture: criteria, scoring and reviewer behaviourF2 | 16%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Framing the case: aims, summaries, significance, innovationF3 | 16%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Approach, rigour, feasibility and preliminary dataF4 | 16%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Investigator, team and environment evidenceF5 | 12%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Scored and assessed attachments beyond the narrativeF6 | 10%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Budget and budget justification as argumentF7 | 6%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Submission, resubmission and responding to critiqueF8 | 8%≈ 1 item | ≈ 1 | |
| Total | 100% | 1 |
Item counts are approximate. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the weights above, so the exact number of items per domain varies between attempts.
Syllabus
6 modules, 6 lessons
Every lesson and every learning outcome is listed. The lesson bodies open on enrolment; nothing else about the course is withheld.
6 modules · 6 lessons
Lesson material opens once you are enrolled. The full syllabus and every learning outcome are shown here so you can judge the coverage before you pay.
Module 1
F1
1 lesson
- Locked.The research funding system and how money is decidedLocked
On completion you will be able to
- By the end, the learner can:
- Describe the path an application takes from call publication to funding decision at a major public research funder. [R]
- Distinguish solicited from investigator-initiated opportunities and explain what changes about the argument. [R]
- Identify, for a given funder, where the binding rules are published. [A]
Module 2
F2
1 lesson
- Locked.Reading a NOFO or call as a specificationLocked
On completion you will be able to
- Extract eligibility, mechanism constraints, criteria, attachments, limits, and submission route from a NOFO without omission. [A]
- Produce a compliance matrix mapping every requirement to a deliverable. [C]
- Judge whether a described project is within a topic's scope. [E]
Module 3
F3
1 lesson
- Locked.What reviewers are asked to doLocked
On completion you will be able to
- State the current NIH, NSF, and Horizon Europe evaluation criteria accurately and attribute each to its source. [R]
- Classify a proposal element as scored, assessed without score, or administratively reviewed, for a named funder. [An]
- Map each criterion to the location in an application where it is evidenced. [A]
Module 4
F4
1 lesson
- Locked.The opening pagesLocked
On completion you will be able to
- Draft a one-page specific aims to a defensible structure. [C]
- Draft a three-part NSF project summary. [C]
- Diagnose interdependent aims and gap statements that describe under-study rather than consequence. [An]
Module 5
F5
1 lesson
- Locked.The supporting apparatusLocked
On completion you will be able to
- Assemble a biosketch or narrative CV that argues fit rather than listing a career. [C]
- Explain the review status of a data management and sharing plan at NIH, NSF, and in Horizon Europe, and why they differ. [R]
- Identify inconsistencies between a narrative, a budget justification, and the attachments. [An]
Module 6
F6
1 lesson
- Locked.Submission, critique, and what to do nextLocked
On completion you will be able to
- Run a pre-submission compliance check and produce a defect list. [A]
- Read a summary statement and separate substantive criticism from correctable presentation failure. [An]
- State the resubmission rules that apply at a named funder. [R]
Assessment
How the exam works
The exam is closed-book and multiple choice. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the domain weights above, so no two attempts are the same paper and no answer key circulates. The pass mark is 70% and is fixed — there is no curve, no quota and no adjustment by cohort.
Scoring is immediate. You are shown your overall result and, for every item, the option you chose, the correct option and the reasoning behind it — whether you passed or not. A failed attempt may be retaken after 90 days. The wait exists so a retake is a second attempt at the material rather than a second attempt at remembering the paper.
Forms are assembled to the blueprint above or not at all: where a domain cannot yet be sampled to that standard, the exam declines to start rather than issue an unbalanced paper. Your material and progress are never affected, and there is no time limit on when you sit.
Passing candidates are issued a certificate with a verification code. Anyone can check that code on our public verification page without an account and without contacting us.
Certifying authority
Signed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD
CASRAI’s certification programme is academically and medically directed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director, who sets the syllabus and blueprint for this credential and signs every certificate issued under it.
CASRAI has maintained the terminology and reporting standards of research administration for over a decade. It assumed leadership of the CRediT contributor-roles taxonomy in 2014 and carried it through to adoption as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, now in use by publishers, funders and institutions worldwide. This examination is drawn from that body of work.
What the credential certifies: that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published above — verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.
The ladder
Other levels of Research Grant Proposal Writing
Levels are independent purchases. There is no prerequisite chain — sit whichever level matches the work you already do.
Common questions
About RESF (CASRAI)
Is grant writing certification worth it?
For research funding specifically, yes — most general grant-writing credentials are oriented to nonprofit fundraising and do not address NIH or NSF review criteria, specific aims pages, rigour and reproducibility requirements, or resubmission strategy. Those are exactly what determines a research proposal outcome.
What is the difference between research grant writing and nonprofit grant writing?
They are different disciplines. Nonprofit grant writing addresses an organisation and its programme; research proposal writing is judged on scientific merit against published review criteria by peer reviewers in the field. This credential covers the research case.
Does this cover NIH and NSF proposals?
Yes. The syllabus works through funder review architectures including the NIH framework and NSF merit review criteria, along with the scored attachments that sit around the narrative.
